Kuvaus: European Union can be seen as a “polity-in-the-making” in which democracy and citizenship are accommodated in a transnational framework. Its fundamental principles have always been contested and in transition, but current developments in Europe have further put them into question. One of the disputes pertains to the confrontation of the intergovernmental and supranational dimensions which has defined the dynamics of the European integration since its inception. In addition, the common defense and immigration policies, pan-EU border control and data surveillance are current concrete examples of these disputes and the political tensions related to the changing power divisions between citizens, states and the EU.

In this panel we are interested in the conceptualisations of Europe or European Union as a polity. We aim at exploring different narratives and conceptions related to the construction of European polity. The panel welcomes papers focusing on the contestations related to this construction in past and recent discussions. Panel also discusses: What are the key concepts used in the construction of European polity? As what kind of entity it has been understood and advocated? What kinds of meanings have been given to it?

Digitalization of research objects and research methodologies in political science: What should, could and should not be done?

Puheenjohtajat: Pertti Ahonen, pertti.ahonen@helsinki.fi

Matti Nelimarkka, matti.nelimarkka@hiit.fi

Mari Marttila, mari.marttila@hiit.fi

Kuvaus: In late 1990s and early 2000s, the notion of information society was used in examining and framing the impact that information technology had on society. Today, the notion of digitalization is used in reflecting upon the same topic, but technologies have greatly evolved and matured. Commonly referenced examples of digitalization include changes in employee-employer relations (e.g. Uber, Wolt), automation and platformization (e.g. Airbnb, Facebook). Digitalization has also influenced the overall society, e.g., the role of education institutions and easily accessible education through massive open online courses (MOOCs). In this workshop, we ask what are the impacts of digitalization upon political science. In particular, our interests relate to two dimensions:

Methodologically, digitalization influences data collection and analysis. The field of computational social science takes advantage of novel data sources or new methods that can be used for data analysis. Novel data sources refer to (often online) digital trace data provided by users, such as Twitter or mobile phones as trackers. From an analytical perspective, the question is how we can use algorithmic tools, such as machine learning or simulation, to examine social phenomena. There is an emerging trend to apply these tools in political science research. Moreover, there are signs that empirical political science research that has calmly flown in the academic mainstream, such as the examination of texts of political party programs, increasingly takes into account the possibilities that computational methods offer.

New political phenomena also open up for empirical researchers to examine. First, digitalization creates new avenues to speak and act, importantly various social media platforms. These avenues have interested political scientists for some time, such as political campaigns and protests. Another direction for empirical research would be to apply science and technology studies framework. In that area, tools and environments are seen as constructed and the question is why certain choices have been made in the construction process.

In this workshop, we invite papers that address the question “What should, could, and should not political scientists study given digitalization and by means that include digital methodologies?”.

The “shoulds” can arise, for instance, from pressing concerns to tap new digital methods to examine tsocial media discourse concerning immigration, refugees, terrorist acts and frozen or ongoing political and military conflicts, and to draw inferences concerning networks of actors under examination.

The “coulds” derive, for instance, from the enabling capacity of the digital methodologies to examine data in substantially larger proportions than entrenched methods, and to engage in new kinds of quantitative and quantitativeassisted qualitative examination.

Finally, the “should nots” are situated where political scientist have to seriously consider to which types of political power they render services on the one hand and on the other to which political emancipatory efforts they dedicate themselves.

Each paper should examine a case that illustrates the actual (realized and proven) or potential (possibly and promising) influence of digitalization upon theoretical, methodological or empirical aspects of political science research. Those whose papers are accepted for presentation should deliver a full manuscript not later than two weeks before the conference, meaning a deadline of 25 February 2016. We prefer English contributions for the inclusion of other than Finnish-speakers, but we also accept proposals for papers in Finnish or Swedish.

Tuomas Forsberg, professor, School of Management/Politics, University of Tampere, tuomas.forsberg@uta.fi

Aino Tiihonen, Researcher, doctoral candidate, School of Management/Politics, University of Tampere, aino.tiihonen@uta.fi

Kuvaus: Studies on different aspects of trust have become increasingly relevant in many social science research disciplines. In this working group we attempt to gather together people working on trust and distrust in political science broadly taken, including international relations.

In political science, the causes and consequences of different forms of political trust has been in focus. Political trust is broadly defined as a basic evaluative orientation of how governmental institutions, political parties and actors operate against the backdrop of the citizens’ normative expectations. High trust makes institutions work effectively, facilitates social and economic exchange, moderates transaction costs in markets and reduces the need for control and supervision. In the long run, the lack of political trust may affect both the legitimacy and stability of democratic regimes, increase the willingness of citizens to engage in illegal behavior.

In the last two decades, research has also found social trust to be a cure for many ails of society. The statement is that high levels of generalized social trust (the feeling that ‘most people can be trusted’) promote civic virtues, social cohesion and a cooperative social climate, whereas lack of the same will create democratic problems, such as political dissatisfaction and declining political participation. With the new challenges that come with the arising number of refugees and asylum seekers in many European countries, questions of social cohesion and integration have become central.

Trust is also crucial for international relations. The main question has been how trust can be created and maintained, how it is broken and whether it can be restored between states but trust is an issue for all kind of collective action in world politics. One key issue has been, to what extent trust can be developed on the interpersonal level between the leaders and how much this level of interaction matters compared to the structural constraints and collective identities.

The panel welcomes theoretical studies on the concepts of political and social trust, as well as interpersonal trust in politics. Also welcome are empirical papers that take on diverse methodological techniques and analytical tools. Approaches that concentrate on the various expressions and trends of political and/or social trust, either at the micro- or macro levels, are also encouraged. Papers should preferably be written in English, but manuscripts in Finnish and Swedish will also be considered. The working language of the panel will be decided upon when the group of participants is known.

Kuvaus: Populism has become a key term in contemporary politics, and a frequent object of study for researchers in Europe and beyond. This workshop is planned as an open platform for debating a multiple dimensions of populism, and try to answer quite a range of questions.

It is time to reflect upon this phenomenon: what is it about, how it emerged, how is it framed and how could or should it be understood? What would be the consequences of reflecting upon it as an ideology, rhetoric or movement – or a distinct party family or some wider phenomenon? How has the emergence of populism been problematized and contested? What are the effects of populism in politics?

We could reflect on the state of the discipline: Given that it has been such a popular topic, have the multiple studies of populism captured something crucial about populism that we could be learning from? Is populism studies a field of its own? Which dimensions would the field include? Would we consider it an interdisciplinary field?

We could also reflect on the potential relationship between populist and democracy: Is populism crucial to politics and democracy or something inherently anti-democratic? Is populism always something negative or can there be found something constructive or useful, for example through its politicizing character? Or is it fundamentalismi anti-political, and anti-system? How exactly does populism challenge democracy?

Furthermore, we could discuss the aspects and dynamics of populism. Is populism empty rhetoric or are there some demands behind populist rhetoric and movements, and have they been dealt with? Should one approach populism as an aspect of all political parties? Would then populism be different in different cases and on which logics populism operates? Can a “normal” populist party become a “populist” one? Would the populism of larger mainstream and smaller contesting parties be different? What happens to populists in power?

This workshop focuses on politics of populism, populist rhetoric, political and cultural populism. The papers could address cases of populism, or be more theoretical. We welcome reflections on contemporary politics in Finland, histories of populism, right and left-wing populism in Europe and beyond. We could explore similarities and differences in the populist dynamics, rhetoric and movements between contexts or cases.

Kuvaus: We are being told that religious violence is a threat of our time. France, barely standing after Paris blows, retaliates by bombing Islamic State bases in Syria (with Germany’s support). This summer David Cameron warned Britain of islamist extremists who seek to destroy nation-states and make a ”barbaric realm” of Britain. Barack Obama visited the UN in October and launched a ”global war on ideologies” with ”planetary efforts”.

Finland looks like joining this war effort as Ministry of the Interior introduced its action plan against violent extremism three years ago. Purpose of this policy is to prevent the political promotion of ”anti-democratic ideas and doctrines” that aim at ”radical social change” and, in some cases, become acts of terrorism.

While media keeps telling us about the threat of religious violence almost exclusively, there is very little talk about what comes the other way around: secular violence? What is secular violence? This is a very good question seldom asked. If religious violence is something that especially seems to bother the secular realm, it stands to reason that anti-religious violence does the opposite. Most typical case of secular violence is likely one where the secular state harasses religious people in some way.

It is safe to say that secular violence has been a persistent problem in the modern era. Even so: literature discussing it and this is nearly non-existent. William T. Cavanaugh argues that in Western societies the attempt to create a transhistorical and transcultural concept of religion which is essentially prone to violence is a myth that helped to conceive the national state. Familiar story about Wars of Religion and their successful Westphalian settlement set the stage for temporal power to begin manage politically communities with potentially radical beliefs, and this goes on today. In present concerns the myth represents secular West as rational and peacemaking, while Muslim world appears as a horde of religious fanatics coming this way.

We are concerned about the current conversation concerning extremism in Finland, Europe and the world. The issue at hand is that this conversation provokes conflict between religious people and the state. These conflicts will hurt religious people first, but they will inevitably come back to hurt the state.

Rethinking religious and secular violence welcomes papers that discuss, in some way, the growing body of literature exploring, empirically and/or theoretically, how ”religious” and ”secular” categories are used in political discourse for violent purposes.

Elias Laitinen, Department of Political Science and Contemporary History, University of Turku, easlai@utu.fi

Kuvaus: Patterns of political participation are changing in Western democracies, where a decline in traditional forms of participation accompanies an increase in new forms of non-institutionalized and bottom-up political activities. At the same time, several democracies have introduced so-called democratic innovations at both the local and state levels. By enabling greater citizen involvement between elections through officially sanctioned channels, the hope is to rekindle citizens’ belief in the political system and thereby increase democratic legitimacy.

While this pattern can be observed in most representative democracies, the implications are still far from certain. Some argue that the changes are signs of responsibility-taking on behalf of citizens and the arrival of a new democratic ideal. Contrary to this, others contend that the changes show that citizens do not comprehend how democratic politics function and that the new forms of participation do not adequately empower citizens in political decision-making. It is also unclear who take part in the different forms of participation. In particular, it is unclear whether the new forms of participation mobilize new segments of the population in the democratic process or mainly offer new channels for those who are already politically active.

In this workshop, we invite contributions that examine these developments empirically or theoretically in a Finnish context. The working language of the workshop will be English, but the papers may be in Swedish and Finnish as well.

Puheenjohtajat: Elina Todorov, University of Tampere, School of Management, PhD Candidate, Public Law, elina.todorov@uta.fi

Mehrnoosh Farzamfar, Erik Castrén Institute of International Law and Human Rights (ECI), Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki, mehrnoosh.farzamfar@helsinki.fi

Kuvaus: With no doubt, the 9/11 attacks were turning-points in revising migration policies in the Western world and redirecting the decision making of many national and supra-national courts. In this regard, the approach of the European Union and the ECtHR specifically is of high importance. For example, how the ECtHR, aftermath of the 9/11 and under the influence of series of terrorist attacks in major European capitals overruled its earlier judgments in safeguarding the principle of non-refoulement. Any observer could easily predict that the November 2015 Paris attacks, similar to the 9/11, is also a critical moment, which will have decisive impact on setting different policies on the issue of migration in the EU. For instance, we are witnessing how since 14 November 2015 France has been pressurizing the European Parliament to enforce new external border controlling mechanisms, otherwise France will take some actions in this regard autonomously.

Accordingly, challenges will arise based on our current expectations of migration. We now have migrants whom we mainly believe resulting from conflicts and wars. Some of them may also be economic migrants, seeking for better life. What’s more, there will surely be more migrants escaping climate change during the coming years, so called climigration. Migration flows happen both in regular, authorized manner as well as in irregular, unauthorized or even clandestine manner. In other words, migration in all its forms is persistent and thus prone to the implications the states have taken or are likely to take in order to combat terrorism and defend its interests of national security.

These combating interests of an individual and of a state create contradictory issues concerning one’s human rights and legal status, realistic means to be able to migrate and reside legally in a state, and for a state respectively issues concerning its discretion in migration and national security. Taking into consideration the present day conditions, the ECtHR, that is regarded the most powerful human rights organ to date, has to balance between making decisions which are affected by international politics and human rights considerations. Suggested areas/topics for papers and discussions:

Is migration a security-related issue? (securitization of migration)

What are the implications of terrorism on migration policies? What kinds of forms of migration are produced through the states’ more restrictive immigration policies, will there be new forms of irregular/unwanted migration?

Which one comes first? Security or human rights? Could there be any possible resilience between them? A state’s interests (security, margin of appreciation in (im)migration issues) and an individual’s competing interests (human rights) in contradiction.

The era of “Global War against Terrorism”; how can democratic institutions handle that?

How much the ECtHR is securitized? What is the role of the ECtHR? The ECtHR’s standpoint on “Global War against Terrorism”, extradition treaties, extraordinary renditions, legal and human rights status of migrants and aliens in security-related issues, human rights obligation and the width of the margin of appreciation of a member state etc.

Paris’ November 2015 Attacks, another 9/11; what’s next? Are they turning-points in not considering migration from a democratic point of view?

Puheenjohtajat: Päivi Pirkkalainen, Post-doctoral researcher, Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of Jyväskylä, paivi.pirkkalainen@jyu.fi

Hanna Wass, Academy research fellow, Department of Political and Economic Studies, University of Helsinki, hanna.wass@helsinki.fi

Marjukka Weide, Doctoral candidate, Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of Jyväskylä, marjukka.weide@jyu.fi

Kuvaus: European societies are currently witnessing an increasing number of immigrants who are mostly asylum seekers from war torn countries outside the EU. In addition, in many countries a large share of young citizens are descendants from migrants who settled in Europe several decades ago. In spite of this growing diversity, the contemporary European context is highly problematic in terms of social and political inclusion of immigrants. The societal atmosphere is characterized by growing xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiments, represented by populist and radical right parties and various actors in civil society. In public discussion on immigration, much attention is paid to the vulnerability of migrants due to marginalization, and to radicalization as a potential outcome.

This interdisciplinary workshop addresses political citizenship and participation among people with migration background, closely linked to a core issue on accommodation of diversity and inclusion. We are particularly interested in the interplay between formal political involvement via elections and political parties and non-institutionalized politics including associations, boycotts, protests and internet activism. The panel invites papers dealing with questions such as how and via which channels migrants in Europe construct their political subjectivity and citizenship? To what extent formal political institutions (political parties, elections) have managed to include migrants? How is civic participation among migrants associated with political involvement and activities? Which type of issues mobilize political action among migrants? Finally, what kind of transnational aspects can be found in nation state based political participation? Theoretically-oriented papers and single-country empirical analyses are equally welcome, as well as cross-country comparisons.

Kuvaus: Narratives have a central role in political science. As Bevir and Rhodes write, political science ‘relies largely on a narrative form of explanation. We account for actions, practices and institutions by telling a story about how they came to be as they are and perhaps also about how they are preserved. Narratives are thus to political science what theories are to the natural sciences’.

In political science narrative has been engaged with, studied and employed in various ways, ranging from autobiographical approaches to strategic and ontological perspectives. Some scholars focus on the structural aspect of narrative and examine what constitutes a narrative, while others are more interested in the relationship between narrative and social reality. Narrative can be treated both as a mode of explanation and a research method in political science.

The concept of narrative is particularly important when studying immigration and refugee policies because of the potency of narrative in framing policies and limiting policy options. Political actors often act as ‘narrative entrepreneurs’ who employ cultural and historical resources to strategically frame their policies in sensitive issues that can wield popular reactions. The task of political scientists is to tease out the narrative resources that such representations rely on and unpack their political aspects.

This panel welcomes submissions on all aspects of narrative in political science: what accounts as narrative, how political events are narrated in theory and practice, what kind of narratives are successful in politics and international relations, why narratives matter in politics, and what are the benefits of using narrative as a tool, concept or method in political science. Narratives are everywhere, but there are also limits to them – not everything is narrative. What are those limits?